Unseen Text: Should Netball Be Our National Sport?

Text Type: Newspaper Article – Opinion Column

Guiding Question: How is tone used to shape the meaning of this text?

There’s no doubt about it – humour can be one of the most tricky things to analyse. Notwithstanding cultural differences that mean people find different things funny, the mechanics of humour can be hard to unpick. Throw in a guiding question about tone, and this past paper suddenly looks far from straightforward. While you may hear tone differently to me (this article could be described as sharp, dry, witty, sarcastic, eager, satirical, and more), I’ve gone for ‘humourous’, ‘self-deprecating’ and ‘lighthearted’ in the response below. Don’t worry if you read the article differently; this response is only one way to interpret the tone of the text and alternative approaches can be equally effective:

Sample Response:

The given text is a sports article conveying the writer’s opinion that netball should be the “national sport” of Australia. While this isn’t an entirely serious proposition, the writer’s true meaning is hidden inside this bold claim. Through humour, exaggeration, and self-deprecation, the writer creates a humourous tone that shapes his real meaning: while it may not truly rival Australia’s most popular sports, nevertheless, netball deserves more exposure and participation from Australian sports fans.

Firstly, the writer creates a humourous tone to shape the meaning that netball deserves more exposure. This can be seen in the caption to the image that accompanies the article. The image shows a competitive moment in a game, as a netball player leaps to tower over another player. However, the caption reads: “Great for the joints”. This is a tongue-in-cheek way of encouraging participation in netball: while not everyone can be as athletic as the player in the photograph, even casual players can benefit from more exercise through participating in netball. Furthermore, the article frequently resorts to humour in the main copy. For example, after stating that netball is “the favourite child of the Aussie family” the writer immediately undercuts this with humour, adding “the genial, good looking… younger one, who doesn’t have the hang-ups of its siblings…” Using humour to personify netball helps shape the meaning that, like a slightly neglected younger sibling finally coming out from the shadow of an older brother or sister, it deserves its own attention and may even prove to be the more successful (‘favourite’, ‘good looking’) and appealing child. Overall, the writer creates a humourous tone to shape the meaning that, while netball may be a slightly neglected sport, it’s time to consider playing it and appreciating it more.

Furthermore, the writer exaggerates his tone at the beginning of the article to shape the meaning that netball has advantages over more popular sports. For example, he describes cricket as “sooooo boring” and rugby as a “blood sport”. In both these phrases, he demeans more popular sports using exaggeration: cricket is seen as slow-paced, so the writer draws out the word ‘sooooo’ until it is exaggeratedly long. Rugby, on the other hand, is a frenetic full-contact sport where players aggressively tackle each other to win the ball, so the writer simplifies this to a “blood sport” as if hurting the opponent is the object of the game. After listing other sports in the same exaggerated way, the writer concludes that all big sports get criticized, using the phrase “cop a spray” as if these sports are bad people that deserve to get yelled at. He then segues into his main argument – that netball cannot be criticised like other sports. In this way, he uses a tone of exaggeration when presenting other sports in a simplistic, caricatured way to make netball seem more appealing by comparison, shaping the meaning that it deserves more recognition as a “national sport”.

Finally, the author combines humour and exaggeration with a self-deprecating tone to make sure his points are delivered in a light-hearted way. For example, in the fifth paragraph, he recounts a statistic while being self-deprecating: “according to a very difficult government website to work out [netball] is the sixth most popular sport,” going on to pretend he doesn’t know if the stat refers to a state, country, children, or what. The reason for this is that his research doesn’t align with the narrative he’s jokily trying to push: as he admits, “the numbers may not add up” so netball has no chance of being the top sport in Australia. Instead of giving up on his claim, however, he jokes that he’s not smart enough to understand the website and suggests other people “who are smarter than me” might come to a different conclusion. By making himself the target of his own jokes, therefore, the writer not only protects his slightly ludicrous argument, but ensures that the whole article is taken in the same light-hearted way, inviting readers to join in the joke by laughing at him as well.

In conclusion, the writer uses humour, exaggeration, and self-deprecation to craft a light-hearted tone that shapes the meaning of the article: while his claim that netball “should be our national sport” is overblown, nevertheless readers can sense his true meaning hidden behind the humour. While it may languish behind other more popular sports, that doesn’t mean netball is not undeserving of more appreciation and participation.